Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V, Part 1

501.BC Kashmir/10–3048: Telegram

The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State

secret

Paris, October 30, 1948—8 p. m.

Delga 555. Following replying aide-mémoire informally presented to UK October 27 pursuant Gadel 172,¹ October 11 and Geneva’s 1383, October 12. UNCIP decided on October 28 to meet in Paris November 8.

“UNCIP has been working since late September in Geneva on an interim report.

1. The first part of the report will be in our hands momentarily. We shall be glad to make a copy available as soon as it is received. Its submission to the SC can probably be arranged for a time that will harmonize with any pending efforts for settlement of the dispute. We would hope that the first part may still be modified if after consultation with the UK such modification appear important.

2. We understand that the commission is planning to meet in Paris for conferences and to consider conclusions on November 1. At the suggestion of the SYG and of the US member of the Commission an informal meeting planned for October 28 in Paris has been abandoned. We are urging that the Commission remain in Geneva, and that ample time be allowed for the consideration of both parts of the report by US in consultation with the UK.

3. We believe that the second part of the report might well contain constructive recommendations based on the principles of the SC resolution of April 21, 1948. According to our information, the first part as now drafted will be largely historical in approach. The present thinking in the Commission is that it should contain no conclusions or recommendations, except perhaps the expression of the hope that the parties can be induced to agree on a plebiscite under Part Three of August 13 of the resolution and to accept the cease-fire and truce provisions. On this theory, the Commission would expect its conclusions to be added later in the second part. These conclusions would recommend affirmative action either on the Commission’s initiative or possibly suggest further SC action as the basis for such recommendations. It is our hope that the content of the report will not be such as to call for SC action but can be regarded by the Council merely as an interim report of the Commission’s progress. This is a point on which we and the UK may wish to confer.

4. Looking now to the possibility of combining the principle of a plebiscite with partition of certain areas of Jammu and Kashmir, we have for some time considered that such a formula is worthy of careful consideration. For reasons that are obvious we have, however, been disinclined to take the initiative on the point.

5. Our information is that the interim report as now being drafted will not discuss partition which has not been formally considered by the Commission. It found the idea unpopular especially with the Moslems of both parties who feared that by any partition they would lose the Kashmir Valley. However, there is some indication that the members of the Commission are of the general opinion that a partition agreement has distinct administrative advantages, as opposed to a plebiscite, in certain areas.

6. Before proceeding with the consideration of this question or taking any definite steps we would be interested in knowing the UK’s view on partition in general and whether the UK has in mind any particular plan as to a plebiscite and partition. If such is the case, we would like to discuss its details as a necessary prelude to the support of any general proposals which might arise in the Commission or the SC. Also, we would appreciate any information as to whether the UK contemplates informal discussions with any other governments represented on the Commission as to the type of recommendations the Commission might make, but we would infer from Paragraph Six of the UK’s aide-mémoire that such discussions are not intended. We should also want to consider whether the initiative in suggesting partition might come from some delegation on the Commission other than our own.

7. We should be glad to have further discussion of the general and particular aspects of this case with the UK and are mindful of its thinking that the initiative in discussing partition should come from, the Commission.”

Sent Department Delga 555, repeated London as 1160.

Department repeat Karachi and New Delhi.

Austin

1. Not printed.